Designating photographic intent and content

[twmeyer]

and I concur. I just thought your statement needed some prodding into the light. I <i>do</i> think that the tables have been turned on painting as perceived generally. It's kind of sad how often I see depth of field painted onto a canvas these days... t

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Tom</b> <i>what's the problem, Pico? is P-net running out of bandwidth, or is it just "bad form, old man, bad form"... ?</i><p>

IMHO, it is bad form, especially when one has already posted the same picture several times to 'answer' different questions so that it is affirmed that the picture is impertinent.

[h._p.]

"It's kind of sad how often I see depth of field painted onto a canvas these days..."

 

I can see where you're going with that, Tom. On the other hand, I suppose it's a kind of affirmation that photography is becoming a paradigm for other artists to emulate...<div></div>

[h._p.]

Aha! Gimpshop is pretty cool for an open source programme but it takes a little getting used to...<div></div>

[twmeyer]

but why is it okay for them to emulate us, but not the other way around? Are we so insecure?<p>I didn't think I had posted those images before (the last is brand new, never posted anywhere before). And did you mean "impertinent"? I certainly don't mean to lecture with those images, they are offered either as comic relief or a visual illustration which I think valid. But I'll stop... t

[h._p.]

Please don't stop, Tom, your pictures are marvellous, especially that last one, much better than my own poor efforts...<div></div>

[twmeyer]

I wondered what you look like. And a Sikh, too!... t

[j_robinson2]

F/64, is unnatural to the human eye as is Velvia.

 

Maybe there is something defective in your eyes?